As a traducianist, I could never sign away my rights as a parent. That sense of duty isn't necessarily entailed by traducianism, but for me the viewpoint is existentially compelling in just that way.

Interestingly enough, since on my monadic view of personhood death is an absurdity that has no proper explanation (for what it "is"), I'm seeing something analogous in this case; divorced from the context of marriage and embodied creation of new life, such life is also in an absurd position, making sound judgments perilously difficult.

IMO, it bodes ironically bad for inchoate life to be in the same place, metaphysically, as death itself.

Quite unequivocally... if a fetus has a right to an unvolunteered organ or body so that it may live... its rights trump those of any and all other humans.

That must be Cameron I, inasmuch as he's advancing the sophomoric implication that like many parasites (whose level in the great chain of being his ilk imagine the unborn occupy as well), the unborn are capable of host-hopping.

Please, Cameron II, rein in your jester.

Speaking of jester,

Rasqual, would you like to advance an argument why a fetus' right to unvolunteered body/organs is not exceeding rights enjoyed by all other humans.. or are you going to rely on your popularly incoherent verbal masturbations and accusatory assumptions about me?

...though actually, Cameron I, your crime just there is question-begging.

There's a sense in which "accidential" conception, construed as involuntary, has further implications. It seems one's own body is not cooperating with the mind. "I do not want to conceive," but one's body does anyway.

It's not just sexual lack of self-control that's at issue. It's that no one has such complete control over their body as our public rhetoric suggests. Abortion in this light is an effort in damage control to compensate for lacking a power our minds just can't provide our bodies.

Consider Frank Herbert's exploration of this with the Bene Gesserit in Dune.

The lesson here is that one kind of self-control (sexual) is a great antidote to the problem that we totally lack another kind of self-control (the ability to consciously control conception). It's sad that the unborn are collateral damage in a way some women insist on fighting with reality itself, to regain control they can never have in order to compensate for not exercising control they do have.

Still Cameron I, I see. Bring on Cameron II and we'll talk.

Cameron, your question has no practical application.

It doesn't matter why, or even if, unborn children have rights not extended to the general population. We have already established that certain groups of people have rights not afforded to others.

For example, a parent is legally obligated to care for an 8 year old, but not an 18 year old. Our system of government gives "special" privilages to the young that are not afforded to adults.

Because this has been established, it is pointless to bemoun the possibiity that the unborn may also fall into a protected catagory.

That must be Cameron I, inasmuch as he's advancing the sophomoric implication that like many parasites (whose level in the great chain of being his ilk imagine the unborn occupy as well), the unborn are capable of host-hopping.

LOL

If I recal, the Bene Gesserit could only control for the gender of the child. However, the restraint from sex, and the old flawed responsibility argument, are a red-herring.

Why should a fetus have unvolunteered organs/body when no other human does?

We haven't established anything Lauren beyond your confusion about what constitutes rights and accepted burdens of responsibility.

How come I don't have the right to say what I please in the class room... indoctrinate my students so to speak? Isn't freedom of speech gauranteed there too?

Why should a fetus have unvolunteered organs/body when no other human does?

Actually, ALL of us did have this right, at one time, or else we wouldn't be here today.

Because this is how reality works, Cameron. Mothers bear children. We're not Platonic spirits hovering about. We're embodied ones capable of sophomorically questioning why it's so, and of pretending that transcendance of the physical is a legitimate aspiration if only we can find some helpless human to sacrifice on the alter of the regnant Self.

Any argument concluding that unborn humans are indistinguishable from parasites, is a successful reductio whose premises are justly called into question.

I'm responsible for many outcomes, whether they were voluntary on my part or not. If my dog bites a neighbor, it's probable that this was not my intention. Nevertheless, I'm liable.

Any notion that only voluntary decisions entail responsibility is not something that can be taken seriously, so I'm not sure why you're leaning on it. And you are.

When my dog bites the neighbor, that neighbor legitimately has a claim on me for treatment of her injuries. When the unborn find themselves dependent on someone who created them (intentionally or not) for their very lives, they have a just claim as well.

If there is a right to life, those who create it incur the greatest obligation to that life. In the world of pro-choice, there are no obligations for those who create humans who possess life.

Climb up and kick the ladder down. What rot.

Cmaeron and Rasqual:

Can't life itself be termed an involuntary event, however, once consciously experienced, heartily defended apart from insanity?

If our bodies are truly autonomous, then suicide should be a right. Since it is not seen that way anywhere in our laws, the exercise of bodily autonomy as a justification for an abortion, which inherently violtates the bodily autonomy of an other, is inconsistently applied and therefore subject to recourse.

Holy mixed messages and red herrings! let’s reiterate.

Jill sez...

“If and when Roe is overturned, it will be not on the basis of whose rights trump, woman or embryo/fetus, but on the personhood of the embryo/fetus.”

I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs.

In response, and despite Jill’s statement otherwise, Lauren provides the contradictory notions that a) the question is not important/has no practical application and B) Its fine for someone to have more or less rights (without any elaboration and while confusing it with accepted burden of responsibility). Which is it Lauren? Is Jill’s notion about rights important or not? If so, is Jill’s notion accurate or is it more like my question suggests? You people should at least try to be consistent amongst yourselves.

Rasqual comes back with the old responsibility argument.... which is an is-ought logical fallacy. Not all is-ought notions are flawed though, they simply require that cognizant argument connecting the is and the ought to be.... some more than simply saying this is, therefore that ought be.... particularly when we’re talking about people’s rights. To summarize the responsibility argument foolishly employed here: having done the nasty, and irresponsibly so, with one person, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is automatically forfeited to non-existent but potential third party.

I’m not here arguing whether or not the fetus having rights which exceed all others is right or wrong... I’m countering Jill’s claim about trumping vs. personhood. Does anyone want to actually explain to me who when and where we give people rights to the unvolunteered organs or bodies of others?

I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs.

Except that it doesn't exceed other human's rights. Every single human alive on this planet today was allowed the right to another's body at one time.

"If our bodies are truly autonomous, then suicide should be a right. Since it is not seen that way anywhere in our laws,"

I don't think suicide is "illegal" anywhere any more. It's viewed as a medical disorder, not a law that's been broken.

"...which inherently violtates the bodily autonomy of an other, is inconsistently applied and therefore subject to recourse."

Review negetive and positive rights. Denying someone a piece of your liver, such that they would die without it, does not violate their rights... at least not in the minds of reasonable people.

"Except that it doesn't exceed other human's rights. Every single human alive on this planet today was allowed the right to another's body at one time."

LOL... exactly! sure you to use "allowed"?? What exactly does allowed mean to you??

I don't know what's so significant about that, Cameron. I was given the right just as every other human that is alive was given that right. Just like you were given that right.
It's something that EVERY person should have a right to...their own mother's womb.

Actually Cam, it is in Alabama. One of those old laws that never got removed. But they don't actually arrest you for trying to kill yourself.

And I use the word "given" because I was born post- Roe, where the laws had already been changed just as they did with the Dred Scott ruling, and claimed that some humans are non persons under the law.

Therefore, my mother could have chosen not to allow me the right to live, however morally wrong it was, just as one could have killed a slave when they were not considered persons, thus not allowing them their right to life, as obviously morally wrong that was.

Ah... My southern bell chimes in.

*blows kisses

Bethany

"Therefore, my mother could have chosen not to allow me the right to live....."

ROFLMAO

You sure you want to invoke Dred Scott? Slaves were a class of people who were members of society that were treated as though they weren't members of society. Fetus is not clas of people but, but a human developmental stage preceeding any relevant recognition by society, and the prolife position here is that something which is not a member of society is supposedly a member of society.

"Fetus is not class of people but, but a human developmental stage"

Ohhhh, I see, a development stage...

Like I said...

*blushes @ Cam*

*catches kiss*

*blows one back*

"I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs."

unvolunteed Cam? Yes, The fetus just popped out of the sky like an alien and into the mothers womb. we'll in that case, that alien should not have rights, I'm with ya.

Jasper, when you quoted Cam, I realized something.

Cameron Says:
I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs.

and

Cameron Says:

"Fetus is not class of people but, but a human developmental stage

So which is it? Hmmm....

yes Bethany, like we always say, defending killing/murder for "pro-choices" is always tough. Even Cam can't seem to get his story straight.

This story exemplifies why I loathe living in Texas. I'm already moving as soon as possible; this state is drviving me mad. I'll never live in the South again, gods willing.

Thank-god for the good southern people! Less, you want to trade houses?

Right now I'm going to a happily liberal college: it remains a bastion of sanity in a backwards state. If it wasn't for college, I don't know what I would have done. Thank gods for places that don't care about my hair or my piercings or tattoos.

Cameron:
"I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs."

But since they're the only class of people whose natural development is initiated and sustained uninterrupted by intimate dependence on another person (two, at the outset), it's hardly remarkable that any rights they could be said to possess would account for this extraordinary circumstance, don't you think? Or put another way (since your rhetoric demands accommodation), their developmental stage requires flexibility in how we think about rights. But by your thinking, the unique and universal facts regarding how we all came to exist in and of themselves disenfranchize our early state -- "non-existen[ce]" as you call it. That's question-begging on an order that can't compare with a more fundamental "is/ought" problem you're not acknowledging, since the right in question (life) has its pedigree in natural rights in the first place.

Next up: Scott asserts universal paternity obligations: male progenitors of any living child are liable for half the expenses of raising said child until age 18. Why? To hear Cameron whine about the injustice of the little buggers having a right to unvolunteered wages.

Less, My friend lives in Joshua, TX.

Than I feel sorry for him/her, Heather.

Climb up and kick the ladder down. What rot.

Reminds me of this t-shirt I saw online.

"Now that I'm safe, I'm pro-choice".

That bad huh?

I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs.

You keep saying that, Cameron. I submit that you volunteer the minute you place your penis in a vagina. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you didn't intend to kill someone but you're sill liable. If you have sex with someone, you didn't intend to create a new citizen complete with rights, but if this goes through, you did.

The case for rape can fall into your "unvolunteered" statement, but little else.

You sure you want to invoke Dred Scott? Slaves were a class of people who were members of society that were treated as though they weren't members of society.

Cameron, slaves were not members of society, they were property, much like the embryos that Jill is discussing in her article.

Now if embryos were granted constitutional citizenship, then Roe v. Wade would not be overturned, it simply would no longer apply.

Yes, Tony, and if you force a woman to surrender her vagina against her will, you're a rapist. If you steal someone's kidney's, you're an organ thief. If you want a fetus to have complete rights to a uterus despite the owner's lack of consent...

Less, how did the owner not consent? how did the fetus get there?

The owner consented to sex, jasper, not to pregnancy. Saying that consenting to sex is consent to pregnancy is akin to saying that consent to pregnancy is consent to parenthood, thus negating the option of adoption.

"The owner consented to sex, jasper, not to pregnancy"

less, can you get pregnant if you consent to sex?

Not if you're careful, jasper, not if you're careful. You can also get STDs if you consent to sex, want to ban treatment of those too?

but there is a possibility you could get pregnant correct? So, your responsible for the fetus in your womb, the fetus has no responsibility in this act. The fetus, being a live human cannot be treated like a disease.

Why not? You get pregnant, you deal with it in some way. Some women go to prenatal clinics and make sure they take their vitamins, and keep the kids. This would be giving consent to pregnancy. Some women do the same, but then give the child up for adoption. This would be giving consent to pregnancy, but not to parenthood. And some women terminate the pregnancy: this would be denying consent to pregnancy.

Sure, there's a possibility: why does that mean I have to take nine months out of my life to deal with it if I didn't consent to it?

"And some women terminate the pregnancy: this would be denying consent to pregnancy."

No, this means you consented, then de-consented and took the power of God into your own hands.

"Sure, there's a possibility: why does that mean I have to take nine months out of my life to deal with it if I didn't consent to it?"

because you already consented to it by having sex.

Less, how do you terminate a "pregnancy". Why do pro-choicers dehumanize the fetus/baby? Why don't you just say what your doing, killing the fetus.

Ah, jasper, we reach the core of your argument: the power of God. Funny, not everyone believes in this power, it isn't provable, and it doesn't apply to everyone. Get a new argument.

Why does consent to sex equal consent to pregnancy, particularly if one is using birth control? If you use a condom, saying hey, I don't want kids, and then take a birth control pill every day, saying hey, I really don't want kids, why should you still be forced to carry that pregnancy to term?

Less, when do you think life begins? The babies heart starts to beat at 22 days.

Sperm and egg cells are alive, jasper. The argument isn't when life begins. The argument isn't when a fetus becomes a human. The argument is that a woman can refuse to give consent to use of her uterus, and no one should be allowed to undermine that refusal.

"The argument is that a woman can refuse to give consent to use of her uterus, and no one should be allowed to undermine that refusal."

how about if a woman wanted to abort at 39 weeks?

Depends on the reasoning, jasper. If it is for medical reasons, she should absolutely be allowed to do it. As there is another way to refuse consent, however, namely a c-section, that should be used instead.

Less, when do think a human life begins? please, your own opinion.

Less, no I mean there is no medical condition, she pregnant at 39 weeks, no adoption, shw wants to abort, should she be able to?

There isn't a point where life begins, jasper, as I said: sperm and egg cells are already alive.

Abortion is about removing consent to pregnancy. She can have a c-section and remove consent to pregnancy. If she doesn't want to do an adoption at this point, she can surrender the child to the custody of the state and the state will do what they want to the kid.

Ultimately, I feel as though the decision for that particular (extremely unrealistic, though I suppose that's what you're known for) case is up to the woman and her doctor. It isn't any of my business, frankly.

Ok, a 39 week abortion should be legal.

when do you believe a human life begins? would you say a 39 week fetus in a living human?

Jasper. When life begins isn't the point of all this. Human life exists at conception: the life is there (as previously stated sperm and egg are alive), and the DNA code is human. That doesn't play into the point of the argument: that consent is necessary to use someone else's organs.

Yes, but a sperm and egg are is not a human life.

Less, during the 39 week abortion, how would the ending of the fetus take place?

(Now, rememeber the fetus can survive on it's own without using somebody elses organs). But the mother still has a right to an abortion at this stage (it should be legal, your words).

jasper, point out where I said it should be legal? I said that the patient and the doctor can decide what would be best to do: in this case, I believe a physician would recommend a c-section, and without any particular medical reason, this would likely be what was done. The mother would no longer be pregnant: there would virtually be no difference, at this stage, between a c-section and an abortion.

At this point, the fetus could be surrendered to the state or given to a safe haven, if the mother wanted to surrender parental rights.

My question:
Less, no I mean there is no medical condition, she pregnant at 39 weeks, no adoption, shw wants to abort, should she be able to?"

Your answer:
"Ultimately, I feel as though the decision for that particular (extremely unrealistic, though I suppose that's what you're known for) case is up to the woman and her doctor. It isn't any of my business, frankly."

OK Less, you just this should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Are you saying thats not the case now? I'll ask again, should be legal to abort a 39 week old? (there are no medical conditions, everything is fine)

She doesn't want a c-section, she wants to abort the fetus.

Less:
"Why does consent to sex equal consent to pregnancy, particularly if one is using birth control? If you use a condom, saying hey, I don't want kids, and then take a birth control pill every day, saying hey, I really don't want kids, why should you still be forced to carry that pregnancy to term?"

If I use a leash, but my dog still bites someone, why should I be liable for the doctor bill?

It's responsibility for outcomes. What the hell is this mentality nowadays that if I took precautions, I'm no longer responsible for the outcome? I mean, seriously. Since when does reality guarantee that any precaution will achieve its end? Fact is, people are responsible for the effects they cause.

when the going got tough, Less got going....

Less,

Come to Birmingham, no one here cares about piercings, tattoos, mowhawks, serisouly, we dont care....

Gotta be better than Texas any ways.

I agree Rasqual and Jasper. People need to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions. Sex is no different.

Midnite - nothing is better then Texas. : )

The reality is, if you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. This is no matter how many "precautions" you take, or how many condoms you pile on, or whatever hormonal pills you take to alter your body.

If you drive drunk, you have the potential to hurt and/or kill someone. It might not happen the first time, it might not happen the second. It might never happen at all. But if it does, you shouldn't be surprised, and you should be ready to take the consequences of your actions.

The same with sex. The possibility of pregnancy is written in the design of sex. It shouldn't come as some sort of big surprise.

Bethany,

Not so good a catch... I was clearly paraphrasing you all in one case and concisely stating reality in another. Try to keep up.

Well.. we've got all the trite and cliché sex=compulsory pregnancy; variations of the tacit consent and responsibility arguments, however, nobody seems capable of defending Jill's notion that it's about "equal" rights.

I suppose these red herrings will have to suffice as the proxy "touché'".

Oh... but not so fast.... Rasqual’s enigmatic prose take a minute to sink in....

Rasqual comes close to the mark and seems to be acknowledging my point, however only to build a strawman argument regarding the absolute presence of any rights for the fetus, as opposed to actually weighing mother's and fetus' rights.. and for the erroneous the self-fulfilling conclusion, totally divorced from the actual argument.

The woman and infant are indeed uniquely and inextricably link when it comes to consideration of their individual and collective rights. I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve heard the fetus centric actual invoke this reality... usually they insist on obstinate denial that there is a woman involved and in need of any consideration beyond the presumptuous judgements foolishly employed to facilitate justifying compulsory pregnancy.

"Or put another way (since your rhetoric demands accommodation), their developmental stage requires flexibility in how we think about rights ..."

I couldn’t agree more. So where in "abortion always wrong" is the flexibility???

"But by your thinking, the unique and universal facts regarding how we all came to exist in and of themselves disenfranchize our early state -- "non-existen[ce]" as you call it."

Alternatively, by your thinking (the responsibility argument) how does our coming to exist in the womb render the woman meaningfully "responsible" if she could not have had the fetus come to exist in any other way?

"That's question-begging"

LOL

Speaking of begging the question, in which one of these statements is the proposition implicitely/explicitely echoed by the premise?

A) No person has a right to life such that the organs or body of another person may be taken without being volunteered.

Or....

B)... since the right in question (life) has its pedigree in natural rights in the first place.

I don’t know about you all, but B sounds just a weeeeee bit circular/repedative/true only by virtue of it's own logical form to me.... not to mention divorced from consideration of the disputed right of bodily autonomy.

"Next up: Scott asserts universal paternity obligations: male progenitors of any living child are liable for half the expenses of raising said child until age 18. Why?"

Society has a legitimate interest in the care of adolescents, and that interest does not require taking bodily rights from the father. Perhaps you and Lauren would like to argue that the father is property or something...;-P

Regarding the humorously flawed dog analogy.

When one owns a dog, they've accepted being responsible for it and responsibility for it's behavior.

A more appropriate anology would be if a stray dog wondered on to your yard and bit someone. Are you responsible simply because it happened in your yard? The woman seeking an abortion didn't wan't the fetus in the first place, as the owner of said property where stray dog happened to bite someone has not accepted responsibility for the dog.

Tony,

YOMANK

Slaves were indeed functioning/working/contributing members/units of society, that were not treated as members of society... they were treated as "property."

Would you like to argue that slaves contributed nothing to or required nothing from the society around them?

Read much?

Cam,

If a stray dog enters your yard and bites a stranger walking through your yard, you are not responsible b/c 1.) you donut own the dog and 2.) you didn't give it permission to be in your yard.

But on an interesting side note, if a burglar breaks into your home and gets hurt, he can sue you. In Huntsville a couple of years ago, a man was attempting to break into a woman's home via her sky lights. The sky light was not built to hold 150+ pound and it collapsed sending the would be burglar crashing into the home. He sued the lady for 5 million dollars and won.

"The reality is, if you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. This is no matter how many "precautions" you take, or how many condoms you pile on, or whatever hormonal pills you take to alter your body."

This is no different than the notions forwarded by rapists: She was dressed slutty and asking for it.

"If you drive drunk, you have the potential to hurt and/or kill someone. It might not happen the first time, it might not happen the second. It might never happen at all. But if it does, you shouldn't be surprised, and you should be ready to take the consequences of your actions."

Excellent analogy! So, if the person you hit requires your kidney to survive, can we just take your kidney from you even though you wouldn't volunteer (neverminding how foolish it would be to deny in light vehicular manslaghter charge)??

Under no circumstances does consent to one thing with one person automatically mean consent to another person for another thing.

Excellent analogy! So, if the person you hit requires your kidney to survive, can we just take your kidney from you even though you wouldn't volunteer (neverminding how foolish it would be to deny in light vehicular manslaughter charge)??

hahaha, if the government starts requiring that I am moving to Mexico! Wanna come Cam, it could be fun!

Ahh... the skylight tort reform myth.

http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/the_burglar_and_the_skylight_a_1.html

I don't know if Mexico would be far enough... sort of glorified US territory. But I would still be delighted to spend the day on the beach in Cancun with you sipping margharitas!

I think Belize might be better... They look like their on the verge of being uniquely progressive lil' tropical country. Creole!

Not so good a catch... I was clearly paraphrasing you all in one case and concisely stating reality in another. Try to keep up.

LOL Cameron, you don't remember what your own post was in response to?

Jill's statement: �If and when Roe is overturned, it will be not on the basis of whose rights trump, woman or embryo/fetus, but on the personhood of the embryo/fetus.�

Your first response:
"Quite unequivocally... if a fetus has a right to an unvolunteered organ or body so that it may live... its rights trump those of any and all other humans."

Rasqual, Hisman, Lauren, and I all respond to your post...

My replies said:
"LOL" (in reply to Rasqual's hilarious post)

and

"Actually, ALL of us did have this right, at one time, or else we wouldn't be here today. "
you reply again:

Your response:

"Holy mixed messages and red herrings! let�s reiterate.

Jill sez...

�If and when Roe is overturned, it will be not on the basis of whose rights trump, woman or embryo/fetus, but on the personhood of the embryo/fetus.�

I countered that by pointing out that the fetus would be the first class of people that would have rights which exceed those enjoyed by everyone else: the right to unvolunteered body/organs."

Okay...so explain HOW exactly you were paraphrasing ME in the above quotation about the fetus being the "first class of people that would have rights which exceed....etc"

Also, you claim:
"and [I was] concisely stating reality in another [the quotation about fetus not being a class of people]"

Cameron, using your phrasing, which was:

"Fetus is not clas of people but, but a human developmental stage preceeding any relevant recognition by society, and the prolife position here is that something which is not a member of society is supposedly a member of society"

You wrote this in response to my post about slavery.

Now, look at how easily this corresponds with the slavery mindset:

A slave did not belong to a class of people but was considered property without any relevant recognition by society, and the anti-slavery position was that something which was that a slave, though not considered a member of society was supposedly a member of society.

Speaking of easily this slavery analogy is picked apart....

Nobody's arguing that a fetus is a member of society, and a fetus, like a sperm cell, egg, or organ, is not a member of society. Nobody is arguing that a fetus is entirely without rights... you all are arguing that it's rights should exceed those of anyone else.

Cameron:

"Rasqual comes close to the mark and seems to be acknowledging my point"

To the contrary, you don't have one. If the universe of discourse within which we're conversing recognizes a right to life for anyone at all, and if that right rests on a tradition of natural rights, then your allegation of "is/ought" fallacy is a pot calling a kettle black. You're certainly welcome to better explain how you believe anyone has a right to life at all, but you might want to erase your "which of these statements" thing until you figure out what you're talking about, and what you're leaning on. In other words, you're not understanding why I bothered reminding you of (B) at all.

"I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve heard the fetus centric actual invoke this reality."

You travel in tight circles, perhaps?

"Alternatively, by your thinking (the responsibility argument) how does our coming to exist in the womb render the woman meaningfully 'responsible' if she could not have had the fetus come to exist in any other way?"

Acquaint yourself with the distinction between compatibilist and non-compatibilist understandings of freedom, paying close attention to how compatibilists relate causal determinism to moral accountability. You're welcome to disagree with compatibilist premises, of course.

"Society has a legitimate interest in the care of adolescents, and that interest does not require taking bodily rights from the father."

Society certainly has a legitimate interest in the unborn, as any obstetrician involved in prenatal care can instruct the clueless. As for questions of bodily rights, if a man sweats for income to spend on a child, his body is certainly vested in its care. Only a Skimpole would fail to see that.

Regarding the dog: It's certainly illustrative of your worldview that you find greater responsibility in someone who has purchased a dog than in someone who has conceived a child. But your answer's moot until you ground your conception of where a right to life comes from without invoking natural rights.

Rasqual,

"To the contrary, you don't have one."

Ironically, you still seem to have a great deal to say about nothing. Kind of a mixed message you think? It's also fascinating that despite your unique rhetorical flourishes, you still pretty much say and do as the other desperate pro-lifers here do..(e.g. evade).

"You're certainly welcome to better explain how you believe anyone has a right to life at all, but you might want to erase your "which of these statements" thing until you figure out what you're talking about, and what you're leaning on. In other words, you're not understanding why I bothered reminding you of (B) at all."

Yes, I read more into it than what you were actually saying.

"Acquaint yourself with the distinction between compatibilist and non-compatibilist understandings of freedom, paying close attention to how compatibilists relate causal determinism to moral accountability. You're welcome to disagree with compatibilist premises, of course."

Yes, and I side with incompatibilism, because the notion that she had a choice (sex=choosing pregnancy) is counterfactual. Without any genuine alternative choices (fetus only comes to being in womb and woman cannot choose otherwise), then she is burden with obligation. And speaking of moral accountability, which suggests accepted responsibility and consensus regarding subsequent burdens with appropriate stakeholders, saying abortion is always wrong doesn’t seem like anything akin to how accountability works. That’s called culpability and penalty.

"Society certainly has a legitimate interest in the unborn,"

No they don’t. That’s hyperbole. Society has an interest in reproduction and perpetuating, but society does not have an interest in an individual fetus, as the fetus is not yet a member... just a potential.

"As for questions of bodily rights, if a man sweats for income to spend on a child, his body is certainly vested in its care."

Bodily rights are not taken or infringed upon if dad can’t pay. It results in a permanent lien, and not debtor’s prison or slavery.

"But your answer's moot..[without meeting arbitrarly decided upon new goal post]"

Translation: Rasqual's unable to counter the qualification of his analogy with an alternative foolish analogy.

"Without any genuine alternative choices (fetus only comes to being in womb and woman cannot choose otherwise), then she is burden with obligation."

Very good!

"society does not have an interest in an individual fetus"

Oh, so public funds for prenatal care are for what -- aggregate statistics? The impetus behind such things is what -- a compelling interest in seeing numbers change on a spreadsheet? Good grief, Cameron. How stupid do you think your interlocutors are?

As for your opening remark about evasion, ironically you still haven't owned your hypocrisy for accusing me of is/ought fallacies when you haven't acquitted yourself of the same in the case that you do recognize a right to life. Where's that right come from, Cameron? That's been the issue for four exchanges now; it's what I'm waiting to hear of.

Where do you find a right to life of any kind for anyone at all?

Without any genuine alternative choices (fetus only comes to being in womb and woman cannot choose otherwise), then she is burdenED with obligation.

I suspect you knew what I meant though, and I'm shocked you think it's good!

Women who abort are not seeking prenatal care. And society has no interest in ensuring the health of baby that's not going to be there. Let me know when you see the prenatal care exams being given in advance of abortion.

"That's been the issue for four exchanges now; it's what I'm waiting to hear of."

It looks like you're still making an issue out of the post I already said I missread. Your is-ought fallacy is still a fallacy, and my thinking you were saying something else when you said simply and clearly said a right to life is derived from natural rights is still a mistake on my part.... as opposed to begging the question on your part.

You still haven't answered, Cameron -- where does the right to life come from?

You said yourself:
"Not all is-ought notions are flawed though, they simply require that cognizant argument connecting the is and the ought to be.... some more than simply saying this is, therefore that ought be.... particularly when we’re talking about people’s rights."

Care to fulfill that for your own notion of where the right to life derives?

Rasqual,

Right to life is a universally recognized and self-evident.

The is-ought argument is just that... an argument. Specifically: fetus IS a result of sex, therefor gestation OUGHT to be obligatory. It argues that there is responsibility as a result of causility and actions. Is-ought responsibilty argument is not universally recognized as self-evident. As a result, the is-ought repsonsibility argument requires some elaboration on the argument, however there is none beyond presuming it is self-evident. alternatively, there are some arguments, for a limited number of scenarios which confound the is-ought argument suggesting it is deffinately not any sort of absolute self-evident thing(e.g. rape).

when the going got tough, Less got going....

Yes, because I have a life, including 8 hour shifts at work. You can download anything on the internet these days; maybe you ought to search for one. A life, that is.

Gotta be better than Texas any ways.

Ye Gods, anything is better than Texas. I’ve lived on military bases that were more accepting than Texas.

People need to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions.

Yes, and one of the ways to take responsibility, particularly when you feel as though parenthood or pregnancy is impossible at the moment, is abortion.

Failure warning!!!!!

Pro-aborts remove Sovereign God from birth process.

Does not compute!!!!

Warning!!!!

Less: "Yes, because I have a life, including 8 hour shifts at work. You can download anything on the internet these days; maybe you ought to search for one. A life, that is."

thats always a good out Less, when you can't defend your argument, start to personally critize the opponent. Good for you! But hey, you radical libs arn't known for your integrity anyways.

eight hours less! wow am I feeling for you! If only I had 8 hours of work a day!!

This, from the man who called Johnny Depp a faggot because you don't personally like his politics? Hypocrite much?

Cameron seems to have answered rasquel's question for me; I see no reason to go back over it. I'll answer your question, jasper, when you find me a case where it could, you know, actually happen. When you can find that, get back to me.

It isn't too bad luv, but since I have to be standing for the entire time it gets to my feet. But it is good money, so I'm pretty content.

"....start to personally critize the opponent. Good for you! But hey, you radical libs arn't known for your integrity anyways."

ROFLMA

It's like they can't remember what they said once they've said it.

are you serious! It's not TOO bad!?! so what do you do after your 8 hours of work?

Well, it's a really social job, so I get to talk to people. I can't be snarky, but I can deal with that: besides, I get a really good discount, and my fellow employees are incredible.

After 8 hours, I usually come home and make myself a snack/second dinner, then curl up and watch some television, or maybe a movie or two. I work night shifts, so after that I usually just head to bed.

Less and Cam,

spinning around in circles defending baby killing....

jasper, spinning around in circles defending forced pregnancy...

Listen to Fr. Tad Pacholczyk discuss the case on the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio. The show is in the audio archives from Thursday, May 31st 2007. Click on Hour 3 of the show...

Audio Archives...

http://216.235.201.127/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=635&srcid=641

Mike

Cameron:

Why does a mother of a newborn child sometimes sign adoption papers? Why are the papers necessary?

Less:
"Yes, and one of the ways to take responsibility, particularly when you feel as though parenthood or pregnancy is impossible at the moment, is abortion."

This isn't itself a sufficient explanation of "responsibility." If it were, it'd be as true of a neonate as of the unborn.

This account of "responsibility" depends on the legal standing of abortion. Try explaining why it would be not merely exercising responsibility to kill a neonate without recourse to this, if you disagree.

Cameron, you're an F-ing idiot, and until this software allows me to filter out your blathering, or Jill finally bans you, I won't be contributing here any more.

Come now, Tony. That's just Cameron I. His backup -- Cameron II -- is capable of good conversation.

The problem is those posts where it's unclear who's posting. If it's Cameron I, he deserves verbal cudgeling. But it'd be a shame to treat Cameron II so.